From: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Autovacuum / full vacuum |
Date: | 2006-01-17 15:13:57 |
Message-ID: | 20060117151357.GH21092@phlogiston.dyndns.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 03:05:29PM +0100, Michael Riess wrote:
> There must be a way to implement a daemon which frees up space of a
> relation without blocking it too long.
Define "too long". If I have a table that needs to respond to a
SELECT in 50ms, I don't have time for you to lock my table. If this
were such an easy thing to do, don't you think the folks who came up
wit the ingenious lazy vacuum system would have done it?
Remember, a vacuum full must completely lock the table, because it is
physically moving bits around on the disk. So a SELECT can't happen
at the same time, because the bits might move out from under the
SELECT while it's running. Concurrency is hard, and race conditions
are easy, to implement.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
A certain description of men are for getting out of debt, yet are
against all taxes for raising money to pay it off.
--Alexander Hamilton
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2006-01-17 15:19:44 | Re: Autovacuum / full vacuum |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-01-17 15:13:41 | Re: Autovacuum / full vacuum |